The scrapping of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir has turned the spotlight on Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act as well. To many, it appears that Section 118 is the equivalent of Article 370. “Sitting in Punjab, I can buy land in Australia, America, New Zealand and Canada, but not in Himachal, my neighbouring state. All Indians should be allowed to buy land in any part of India,” a gentleman wrote in the Letters to the Editor section of this newspaper after the abrogation of Article 370. He wasn’t speaking just for himself — random conversations on the issue prove that many share his discontent.
Jokes and uninformed rants apart, the truth is that Section 118 does not put an absolute ban on the sale and purchase of land and property in Himachal. It restricts the transfer of land to a person who is not an agriculturalist of the state, including even the non-agriculturalists of the state. Section 118, however, has provisions through which, with the approval of the government, one can buy both land and property in the state.
Permissions required
“There’s no permission required to buy/lease a built-up property in the area falling within a municipal corporation, municipal committee, notified area committee and cantonment boards,” says a senior bureaucrat who has handled Section 118 cases. “One can also buy land/plot in the urban areas from the Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and other government agencies. Again, no permission is required here either.”
But what about buying land outside municipal limits, all of which is designated as agricultural land in the Act? “Section 118 doesn’t prohibit but regulates the sale of agricultural land. A non-agriculturalist needs to apply, state the purpose for which he wants to buy the land, and the government takes a decision on his request within a set time-frame,” adds the bureaucrat. “People are granted land for varied purposes, ranging from setting up an industrial unit, educational institution, tourism, etc. Also, people can get up to 4 acres of land to practise agriculture, and a maximum of 500 square metres for residential purposes.”
The permission is granted only if the government is satisfied with the stated purpose behind buying the land and the individual’s ability and background to carry out the project. While the bureaucrat claims the permission is generally granted, one needs to take the assertion with a pinch of salt.
“Permissions are not denied generally at the secretariat and Cabinet level. But many applications are rejected at the entry-level (DC office), where they are scrutinised for documents and NOCs. It’s quite a cumbersome and time-consuming process,” says a property dealer who liaises with the authorities on behalf of his clients for permissions under 118. “For commercial projects, permissions are relatively easier. But for residential purposes, the process is more arduous and time-consuming.”
“It’s not easy to get permission under Section 118. Mostly, the influential and powerful get it,” a former deputy mayor of Shimla points out.
Idea behind Section 118
Come to think of it, a too lenient approval system would defeat the whole purpose behind inserting Section 118 in the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act in 1972. The Section was included to avoid the accumulation of land in the hands of a moneyed few, and prevent alienation of agriculturalists from their land. “Section 118 became mandatory for Himachal because there’s limited agricultural land because of mountainous terrain, and consequently landholdings, too, are small,” says Rakesh Singha, CPI(M) MLA from Theog. “Besides, back in 1972, when the clause was inserted, the state’s economy was entirely dependent on agriculture and horticulture. In this backdrop, transfer of land to non-agriculturalists would not only have hurt the farmers, but also the economy of the state.
“Even today, close to 90 per cent of the state’s population lives in villages and is engaged in agriculture and allied activities. Agricultural land continues to be scarce, and close to 60 per cent of landholding is less than 6 bighas. With no protection, won’t these marginal farmers, when in distress, be susceptible to sell their land?” asks Singha. “For weaker and backward sections, protection is needed. A similar law ensures that no outsider, including the Himachalis, can buy land in the tribal district of Kinnaur,” he says.
Discontent within state
Even as there’s general consensus across party lines in the state on the utility and continuity of Section 118, the non-agriculturalist Himachalis do harbour discontent. Section 118 equates them with non-agriculturalists from outside the state, and hence they need to follow the same procedure as any other person from outside the state to buy land.
The Section, however, allows the transfer of land to landless labourers, landless persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, village artisans and a few others. “There should have been a clause in Section 118 to safeguard the interests of landless Himachalis who have been residing here before 1972,” says BJP leader Ganesh Dutt. “Those residing here before the Act was amended should not have been debarred from buying land. It has made several people second class citizens in their own state. It’s something we want the government to look into if ever any amendment is made to the Act.”
Despite the grouse, Dutt believes Section 118 is in the interest of the state and should not be tinkered with. “(Former CM) Dr (Yashwant) Parmar showed a lot of farsightedness in introducing Section 118. It watches the interest of small farmers, and overall of the state as well,” says Dutt. “And, of course, there’s no comparison between Section 118 and Article 370.”